Campbell v. Oklahoma County Detention Center et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MICHAEL CAMPBELL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-22-399-R
)
WILLIAM MONDAY et al., )
)
Defendants. )
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Michael Campbell has filed a has filed a “Motion for Preliminary Injunction,”
The Court should deny the Motion. In the Motion, Plaintiff explains that in January 2024,
he was transferred to FCI-El Reno and while there, prison officials told him that he would
be transferred to a federal medical center to undergo surgery on his left hip. (ECF No.
89:1-2). Instead of being transferred a federal medical center, however, Mr. Campbell
was apparently transferred back to the Oklahoma County Detention Center where he
currently awaits a court date. (ECF No. 89:2). Plaintiff explains that “this is the closest
[he has] been in 26 months, to actually having this ‘much needed surgery’” and requests
that the Court issue an injunction to order him transferred back to FCI-El Reno. (ECF No.
89:1, 3). The Court should deny the request.
A preliminary injunction “grant[s] intermediate relief of the same character as that
which may be granted finally.”
De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212,
220 (1945). Here, the basis of Mr. Campbell’s § 1983 action involve allegations of
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, involving prison officials’ denial of
Plaintiff hip surgery and subsequent pain medications.
See ECF No. 25. In the Amended
Case 5:22-cv-00399-R Document 107 Filed 06/05/24 Page 1 of 2

2
Complaint, Plaintiff requested injunctive relief in the form of hip surgery owing to
Defendant Winchester’s failure to schedule the surgery, which he had allegedly promised
to do. (ECF No. 25:15). However, only an individual capacity claim for monetary damages
remains against this Defendant; injunctive relief is not an available remedy.
See ECF Nos.
64 & 71. In any event, transfer to a different facility—the type of relief he has requested
here—would not be ultimately awarded to Plaintiff if he were to prevail on the merits
following trial. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s request for transfer would not guarantee that he
would ultimately be sent to a federal medical center and receive the hip surgery—this
theory is speculative at best.
RECOMMENDATION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
The Court should deny Plaintiff’s Motion for a preliminary injunction requesting a
transfer to FCI-El Reno. (ECF No. 89). The parties are hereby advised of their right to
object to this Report and Recommendation.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636. Any objection must be
filed with the Clerk of the District Court by June 24, 2024.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to make timely objection to this Report and
Recommendation waives the right to appellate review of both factual and legal questions
contained herein.
Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10th Cir. 2010).
STATUS OF THE REFERRAL
This Report and Recommendation does not terminate the referral.
ENTERED June 5, 2024.
Case 5:22-cv-00399-R Document 107 Filed 06/05/24 Page 2 of 2